Rulings notes delay in proceeding brought by Legal Services and Complaints Committee
Western Australia’s Supreme Court refused a fourth adjournment in the proceeding arising from the Legal Services and Complaints Committee’s (LSCC) application to remove the respondent from the roll of practitioners under s 23(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA).
The applicant in Legal Services and Complaints Committee -v- Khosa [2026] WASC 20 commenced the proceedings against the respondent via an originating motion on 5 December 2024. On 21 February 2025, Strk J of the Supreme Court set the application hearing for 3 April 2025.
The court adjourned the application hearing until 2 July 2025. That day, shortly before the scheduled hearing, the respondent filed an affidavit explaining that he had applied for special leave to appeal a 22 November 2024 decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia’s Court of Appeal
A second adjournment ensued. On 4 September 2025, the High Court dismissed the respondent’s application for special leave. On 25 September 2025, the Supreme Court set the application hearing for 17 November 2025.
On 14 November 2025, the respondent successfully requested a third adjournment, as he had gone to Malaysia for urgent family matters and planned to return to Perth in the first week of December 2025. The court set the application hearing for 3 February 2026.
On 29 January 2026, the respondent requested another adjournment. He alleged that the Public Administration Committee of the Senate of the Parliament of Western Australia began an inquiry into the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia in August 2025. The LSCC opposed the request.
The Supreme Court of Western Australia dismissed the respondent’s adjournment application and proceeded with the substantive hearing of the LSCC’s application to remove the respondent from the roll of practitioners.
The Supreme Court ruled that adjourning the application hearing to await the inquiry report would not serve the interests of justice, especially where the report’s release date was unclear and the adjournment sought might not have a fixed duration.
The Supreme Court noted that the inquiry covered the Legal Practice Board’s operation and effectiveness in regulating the Western Australian legal profession, including its conduct of disciplinary proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that the inquiry did not appear to be:
Even if the inquiry would address the Legal Practice Board’s handling of the respondent's case, the Supreme Court pointed out that the inquiry could not disturb the State Administrative Tribunal’s findings regarding the respondent, as the Court of Appeal had the relevant jurisdiction.
Even if the inquiry’s findings would have the force of Parliament, the Supreme Court explained that the inquiry’s findings or comments would not bind the court.
The Supreme Court noted that the original date for the application hearing was 3 April 2025. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the proceeding underwent repeated delays and three adjournments.
The Supreme Court accepted that the respondent has not held a practicing certificate since 2017, which might decrease the urgency of finally determining the LSCC’s application. However, the Supreme Court found that it could not postpone resolving the application without a sufficient reason.
The Supreme Court stressed that it should properly and orderly administer judicial resources and refrain from wasting them.
